Monthly Archives: August 2016

There is one country in the Middle East that has reintroduced the art of wine making to international acclaim, after centuries of barely producing any wine at all: Israel.

Ancient History of Wine in the Holy Land

The Old Testament is full of stories of the use of wine in the Holy Land, and Judaism features wine prominently in many of its commandments.

Ancient synagogues in Israel are replete with vines and grapes adorning mosaics and columns in the Galilee, Golan Heights and Judea and Samaria. The architecture and art of the Romans who ruled in the region 2000 years ago also feature grapes and wine prominently.

Ancient Synagogue in the Golan Heights featuring vines and grapes
along the portals to the Torah Ark (photo: First.One.Through)

The prevalence of vineyards and wine in the Holy Land came to a stop when Arabs invaded en masse in the 7th century, bringing Islam’s ban of alcohol to the region. Further, an earthquake in 749CE led to a destruction of most of the synagogues and buildings that featured grapes and wine in the region.

For the next 1100 years, whether ruled by Arabs or non-Arab Muslims (the Ottomans), the land barely produced any wine at all.

Jews Bringing Wine back to the Holy Land

Some of the earliest records of wineries reopening in the Holy Land include Rabbi Yitzchak Shor in 1848, and Rabbi Avram Teperberg, who opened a winery in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1870. The modern record of the longest continually operating wineries goes to the efforts of Baron Edmund de Rothschild, who established vineyards in Palestine and shortly thereafter the winery, Carmel, with a location in Rishon Le Zion (1890) and another in Zichron Yaakov (1892).

Winemaking spread further after the Six Day War in 1967, after Israel took control of Judea and Samaria which had been illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950. Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria in that war as well, as Syria had used that high plateau to bombard Israel’s Galilee region below it. Israel turned both of those areas into thriving wine making regions, as they had been historically.

While there were 14 wineries in the Holy Land when the Jewish State was reestablished in 1948, there are over 200 wineries in the country today, with some estimates that include the very small wineries to being over 350 wineries.

Entrance to Psagot Winery in the Binyamin section
of Judea and Samaria/ the West Bank(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Wine Production in the Middle East

Today, Israel stands apart from the rest of the Middle East regarding wine production. The only neighbor that approaches the Jewish State’s fondness for wine is Lebanon, which not coincidentally, has a large Christian population.

Israel produced 31 million liters of wine in 2014. Lebanon placed second with just half Israel’s volume, 15.4 million liters. Egypt only produced 3m liters, while Syria, Jordan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the other regional countries did not rank at all.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese drink much more wine than they produce locally, 21.3m liters. In contrast, Israel consumes a small portion of the wine it produces, only 7.8m liters, and exports the rest around the world.

While the Muslim-dominated countries in the region do not produce wine, they do consume negligible amounts: Jordan consumes 373,000 liters, Egypt 225,000, KSA 114,000, and Syria just 15,000, a combined total that is less than 10% of Israel’s consumption, even while their population dwarfs Israel by over 17 times.

Medals, Awards and Notables

The Israelis have not just begun producing wine in the region again, they have perfected the art form.

Over the past several years, the Israeli wineries have produced excellent wines and have entered various competitions, including those held in Europe. Wineries like Carmel (2010) and Golan Heights Winery (2011) even started winning top prizes at those events.

Golan Heights Winery in Katzrin (photo: First.One.Through)

The Vineyards in Disputed Territories

Many of the award-winning wines are derived from grapes grown and wineries located in the disputed territories.

The Golan Heights was allocated to Syria under the Sykes-Picot Agreement after World War I. Syria ruled the area until 1967, when Israel took the region from Syria to protect the Galilee region from persistent Syrian shelling. Today, even in the midst of a bloody civil war that has claimed nearly half a million people, Syria continues to demand that the lands be returned.

Some Israeli vineyards in the Golan Heights(photo: FirstOneThrough)

The land east of the 1949 Armistice “Green” Line, (east of the Green Line, EGL, or the west bank of the Jordan River) was allocated to be part of the reestablished Jewish homeland in international law in 1920 and 1922 in the San Remo Agreement and the Mandate for Palestine, respectively. However, in 1947, the United Nations sought to divide the mandate into distinct Jewish and Arab states (which the Arabs rejected). The Arabs attacked Israel in 1948, took hold of EGL in 1949, and in 1950 the Jordanians annexed the area and renamed it the “West Bank.” The Arabs want this land for a new country to be called Palestine.

Due to the disputed nature of the Golan Heights and the EGL/West Bank, there are international efforts underway to use distinct labels for the products from these regions. Some governments contend that labeling the products as “Made in Israel,” is inaccurate, even though countries around the world use labels in such fashion for territories regularly. Some stores have gone further, and boycott wines and other products produced in these contested areas. The various products made in the Israeli territories account for about $250 million in exports, or about 1% of Israel’s export economy.

It is interesting that some of the countries that lead this boycott effort are the largest consumer of wine in the world. They include: France (#2); Italy (#3); Germany (#4); the UK (#6); and Spain (#7). One would imagine that those countries would be thrilled that Israel has brought back award-winning wine production to the region that Islam had obliterated for centuries. The Israelis not only share their values, but export items they adore.

Israel produces a wide variety of great wines today. The wines run from the ancient – yes ancient, as Israelis are using science to bring back old wine recipes extracted from sediment found in ancient pottery, to brand new wines like Jezreel, a new winery established by an American family that made aliyah.

For lovers of wine around the world who are thrilled to see the Jewish State bring back the holy land’s great history of producing wine which was destroyed for a thousand years, don’t just buy the wine, insist that your local store stock the shelves with Israeli wines as well.

The left-wing fringe has a few favorite bogeymen, particularly Wall Street and the National Rifle Association. Liberals claim that these two groups are corrupting politics by lobbying and buying Congress for their evil gains.

Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.

Wall Street and Goldman Sachs

Consider the comments of Democrat-Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders about Wall Street: “The business model of Wall Street is fraud.” He didn’t just attack a particular firm that may have committed a crime; he vilified an entire industry.

The left-wing media applauded the Sanders approach. Consider The Young Turks, a far left media site which celebrated Sanders’ video ad describing the corrupting influence of Wall Street on politics. They were convinced that Wall Street was buying and lobbying their way to unfair riches. The Sanders ad stated “The ultra-rich employ an army of lobbyists to write tax codes to avoid paying their fair share. It’s part of a corrupt political system.” TYT cheered.

That ad was meant as a direct challenge to Hillary Clinton who was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking with executives at Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is the most famous and wealthiest M&A investment bank. The firm’s leaders are close to Democrats and many ultimately left banking and went into Democratic administrations, including Bill Rubin who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, and Jon Corzine who became the Democratic Governor of New Jersey.

Interestingly, the liberal-wing of the Democratic party attacked its own front-runner in the political middle for being part of a corrupt Wall Street-political scheme.

National Rifle Association

The NRA is a favorite target of every stripe of Democrat. Hillary Clinton proudly declared the NRA as one of her favorite enemies in an October 2015 Democratic debate. Her response drew loud applause from the audience. (She didn’t mention that her campaign does fund-raisers with NRA lobbyists. Shhh.)

Maybe that’s why Bernie Sanders sat unhappily at the Democratic convention. He saw his party taking money from the groups that he opposed. He claimed it was a matter of principle. But was it?

George Soros Lobbyists Dwarf them All

While Sanders and far-left extremists like Jill Stein of the Green Party carry on about the evils of lobbyists – and of Wall Street and the NRA in particular – their hypocrisy should be noted as they never mention the liberal billionaire George Soros.

During President Obama’s first term, George Soros’s Open Society Policy Center spent $10 million on lobbyists. That was a warm-up for Obama’s second term, when Hillary Clinton was no longer serving as Secretary of State, when the OSPC paid lobbyists $34.7 million – and counting. Leaks of the Soros’s emails about influencing American policy were recently made public.

In comparison, over Obama’s second term, the NRA spent $12 million on lobbyists and Goldman Sachs spent $12.6 million. That means that George Soros spent over 40% more on liberal lobbyists than the two biggest liberal enemies spent COMBINED.

Further, Soros has already donated $6 million to Clinton’s superPAC – 10 times as much as she was paid by Goldman Sachs.

Soros’ Open Society supports many of the far-left policies of Sanders and the Green Party. It seeks to influence congress by crafting laws to its liking, much the way that all paid lobbyists do.

It makes it a bit hard to listen to Sanders and Stein yell about lobbyists, when the biggest lobbyist of them all is bankrolling their agendas. Soros just happens to not be bankrolling them.

The United Nations has been a hotbed of anti-Israel sentiment for decades. Whether the issue was war, terrorism, blockades, the security barrier, peace talks, settlements, refugees, etc., the vast majority of countries have been very vocal and very critical of Israel.

In the fall of 2015, Palestinian Arabs claimed that Jews were going to overrun the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and proceeded to kill and attempted to kill dozens of Israelis. Those events made the countries at the UN focus on discussing the Temple Mount itself. Their comments on October 22, 2015 were interesting.

The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount above the Kotel,
location of the First and Second Jewish Temples(photo: FirstOneThrough)

A Muslim Holy Site

Not surprisingly, the Muslim countries referred to the Temple Mount as an exclusively Islamic holy spot.

“State of Palestine” called the location the “Haram al Sharif,” the Muslim name for the Temple Mount.

Angola discussed the “Al Aqsa Mosque,” which is Islam’s third holiest spot, located on the southern tip of the Temple Mount

Qatar mentioned the “Holy Shrine”

Some countries went further, and stressed that the Temple Mount compound was important only to Muslims.

Maldives stated “Haram al-Sharif must be restored. Israel must stop altering the Islamic and Arabic character of the city”

Egypt noted that the “Holy Shrine was extremely important to more than one billion Muslims worldwide,” and said nothing about Jews

Iran called the site “Haram Al-Sharif, and called for respect for the rights of Muslim worshippers to pray at that site in peace.”

Others were more extreme in their calls against Israel:

Saudi Arabia said that “Israel had failed to protect Islamic holy sites, demolished the gates of Haram al-Sharif and turned it into a prayer place for Jews. Israeli extremists had set fire to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron”

Kuwait described “attacks on Al-Aqsa mosque were an unprecedented assault against the inalienable religious rights of Muslims all over the world. The OIC reiterated the historic and present Hashemite custodianship of the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, including Haram Al-Sharif/Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

Morocco was alarmed at the situation of “Islamic holy sites. Jerusalem was the very essence of the Palestinian question and there could be no peace without clarifying the status of Al-Quds as capital of a Palestinian State. Any harm brought against the Al-Aqsa mosque would heighten tensions.”

The surprise in the singular call of the Islamic character of the site, was that a single western country also only mentioned the Arabic and Muslim name for the site: the United Kingdom.

Just Holy Sites

Some countries avoided the controversy, like Spain, Chad, Nigeria, Norway, Korea and France, just referring to generic “holy sites.” Such language was impartial and neutral. That was perhaps logical in a tense and violent environment.

The Holy See mentioned that the location was sacred to “Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” An ACTIVELY balanced approach, which pulled all of the monotheistic religions to Jerusalem.

Turkey’s approach was a mix. Like the Holy See, it noted that “Jerusalem, a city sacred to Islam, Judaism and Christianity, should be treated with the utmost respect.” But then went on to attack Israel’s practices at the site saying that Israel was “targeting holy sites and all other provocative activities undermining the status and sanctity of Haram al-Sharif must immediately stop. The Jordanian role as custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem was crucial for the preservation of Haram al-Sharif as an Islamic sanctuary.” It would appear that Turkey was willing to acknowledge the centrality of Jerusalem to Jews, just not the Temple Mount.

In the long list of world condemnation, there was a silver lining, and it came from the unlikeliest of countries. Three countries besides Israel, referred to the platform as the Temple Mount, recognizing the history of Jews at the location and the sanctity of the spot in Judaism.

Lithuania, a country not known for being a strong Israeli ally, said that the “Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount was a sacred place for both Muslims and Jews.”

Ukraine mentioned the Al Aqsa mosque, but then also said “It was important for both parties to find the courage to respect holy places in accordance with the principles specified in the fundamental international documents, particularly those of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the agreements that regulated the status of the Temple Mount complex.”

Zimbabwe also said that “Access to the Temple Mount and other holy sites must be preserved under the status quo arrangements.”

These are not remarkable statements by these three countries on their face. But to consider that dozens of countries – including Israel’s allies – would not recognize the centrality of the Temple Mount to Judaism, does make their statements noteworthy.

Ukraine has a long history of anti-Semitism, but it was among the few countries that referred to the site by its historic Jewish name. The three countries did go on to chastise Israel for actions on the Temple Mount, but at least they had the decency to not ignore Jews and Judaism also.

Six months later, in April 2016 in Paris, UNESCO itself weighed in that there was no Jewish connection to the Temple Mount when it drafted 40 points of rebuke against Israel, that only referred to the Jerusalem site by Islamic and Arabic names 19 times. This was very deliberate, as seen when UNESCO went through the courtesy of referring to the common names of other Jewish holy sites in discussing “The two Palestinian sites of Al-Ḥaram Al Ibrāhīmī/Tomb of the Patriarchs in AlKhalīl/Hebron and the Bilāl Ibn Rabāḥ Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem.”

Decades ago, several countries would not acknowledge the Jewish State, and many Arab countries to this day still refer to Israel as the “Zionist Entity.” Much of the world is still so backwards, that it cannot even recognize the history of the Jewish people and the holiest spot for Judaism.

Send a note to the governments of Lithuania (misija.jt@urm.lt), Ukraine (uno_us@mfa.gov.ua) and Zimbabwe (zimbabwe@un.int) and let them know that their statements, while seemingly insignificant, meant a lot to a small nation with a little country in the middle of a hostile neighborhood and United Nations.

Consider sending a note to your home country and the UK (fax 212 745 9316) as well, relaying your disappointment. You are welcome to attach this article.

On July 27, 2016, America witnessed an unusual piece of political theater. It was not that a member of a competing political party addressed a convention. It was the thrust of the argument made on the national stage by a respected politician that there’s nothing wrong with marrying a prostitute.

Let me say at the outset that I have long believed that prostitution should be legalized. How do our laws state that pornography and massages are legal but prostitution is not? Why do we allow people to marry for money? Why do women’s rights groups fight for women to be able to control their bodies when it comes to abortion, but ignore the call when it comes to call girls? Lastly, nothing would better protect women in the profession than legalizing the act.

But put all of that to the side. I’m talking about selling your vote. About paying for favors. About quid (the British know it means money) pro quo. About Hillary Clinton.

The former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg addressed the Democratic National Convention in July to appeal to those who dislike both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. His reasoning for backing Hillary Clinton for president was… well, you read it:

“I know what it’s like to have neither party fully represent my views or values. Too many Republicans wrongly blame immigrants for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on climate change and gun violence. Meanwhile, many Democrats wrongly blame the private sector for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on education reform and deficit reduction.

There are times when I disagree with Hillary. But whatever our disagreements may be, I’ve come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue.”

In other words, she’s far from ideal, but the alternative is unacceptable. She may have a bad track record, but at least she’s experienced. You may not love her, but she’ll get the job done.

Sort of like marrying a prostitute.

Of course, you can hold out and wait to marry for love, but the wedding is scheduled for November 8. The Bachelor has two finalists (actually three, including Libertarian Gary Johnson that the press never discusses). Will you marry the person who skates on the edge of the law, has spent a lifetime in her craft, and works the angles to line her pockets, that you severely dislike? Or the novice whose voice agitates you, who’s so new to the street that he doesn’t even know how all of the equipment works?

Bloomberg declared that this election was not about love, but getting the job done. By a professional with a rate card.

Look at the recent ransom payment that the Obama Administration made to Iran to release hostages. The administration may say it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists – except for all of the times that it does. And who’s worse off? The Americans are free, and all we had to do was pay blackmail money. (Hey, the terrorism the Iranians will fund will likely be against Israel and Europe, so America should be OK, so chill.)

And just like the perfected sales pitch “But wait! There’s more!”

Search the leaked DNC emails and review the long laundry list of payoffs that Democrats made for influence. So what? It’s an ATM Democracy.

The farce of this election is that Trump was one of Clinton’s johns. He paid in. He knows she’s worth it. Why don’t you get that?

A prostitute and a john walk into an election cycle…and the former mayor of New York made it clear that you back the service-provider.

Hooray!

It was long past time that someone stood on a national stage and said it’s time to decriminalize prostitution. Thank you Michael Bloomberg. You made your point clearly: There’s no love to be found in this election, so ignore your heart. Pay for the Pro. At least you can be sure you’ll get what you ordered.

And if you don’t have money, see if Obama can get a pallet of bills over to your house before he leaves office. The Iranians say he’s a pro too.

Schadenfreude. It’s a fascinating word. It means “a feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people.” If that sounds quite mean, consider an example.

Imagine a person treats you poorly, perhaps cutting your car off on the road. Should that person subsequently run over a nail and get a flat, perhaps you would experience some joy as you drive past them, witnessing their misfortune. That’s schadenfreude.

The word derives from the German “Schaden” (harm) and “Freude” (joy). Many people think that it is no surprise that the Germans would coin such an expression.

Jews on the other hand, have a related – but inverted – feeling that they experience: a sense of sorrow when they witness sympathy or kindness for others, when they receive none of those sentiments in the same situation. That’s alemtzev.

Consider the murder of a priest in a church in France on July 26, 2016. The United Nations released a powerful statement condemning the murder:

“The High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser strongly condemns the barbarous murder of Rev. Jacques Hamel during a Mass today at the Eglise Saint-Etienne in the city of Rouen in France.

The brutal crime which also involved taking hostages is shocking by all means taking place within a church, a sacred place of worship where people of faith seek peace and comfort and share the values of compassion and tolerance. These are the core values that all faiths embrace.

These barbaric and criminal acts perpetrated by terrorists aim to spread fear and rejection, subsequently leading to fueling hatred and further igniting the cycle of violence and hate crimes. The High Representative extends his deepest sympathies to the family and loved one of Rev. Jacques Hamel and to the people and Government of France.”

A normal, strong and appropriate statement issued by the world body when a single elderly priest had his throat slit in a church.

Reverend Jacques Hamel killed by Islamic terrorists

But how did the UN react when FOUR rabbis were hacked to death with an axe in a synagogue in Israel in November 2014? Read the statement:

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns today’s attack on a synagogue in West Jerusalemwhich claimed four lives and injured several persons. He extends his condolences to the families of the victims and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.

Beyond today’s reprehensible incident, clashes between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces continue on a near daily basis in many parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Secretary-General condemns all acts of violence against civilians. Attacks against religious sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank point to an additional dangerous dimension to the conflict which reverberates far beyond the region.

The Secretary-General calls for political leadership and courage on both sides to take actions to address the very tense situation in Jerusalem. All sides must avoid using provocative rhetoric which only encourages extremist elements. In this regard, the Secretary-General welcomes President Abbas’ condemnation of today’s attack.

The steadily worsening situation on the ground only reinforces the imperative for leaders on both sides to make the difficult decisions that will promote stability and ensure long-term security for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The UN couldn’t spare more than two sentences on the murders of rabbis before turning to blame Israel for the underlying situation. What’s more consider:

The murder happened in Jerusalem, not “West Jerusalem”

It was called an “attack,” not a “barbarous murder” or “brutal crime” as labeled in France

It occurred in a “synagogue,” but not “a sacred place of worship” with “values of compassion and tolerance”

The four rabbis were not mentioned by name, nor was the name of the synagogue as it was for the priest in France. Were these people or just part of the faceless “occupying power” according to the UN?

The murderers were not called “terrorists” as they were in France. Somehow, the entire brutal attack on innocent civilians was turned by the UN into a battle between “Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces”

Jews around the world were appalled by the killing of the priest. Hearing the story reminded them of daily terror Israelis face by fanatical Palestinian Arabs. Listening to how the priest had to kneel before his throat was slit, recalled the incident of the Wall Street Journalist reporter Daniel Pearl who was told to describe his Jewish faith before Islamic terrorists beheaded him in 2002.

The tragedies leave lasting wounds and ongoing sadness beyond the heinous act. Jews not only see a world where the innocents are slaughtered; they repeatedly receive a fraction of the compassion and care that their companions in the foxhole receive.

Alemtzev is a concoction of two Hebrew words: “heet’alem” which means “ignored/ passed over”, and “e’tzev” which means “sadness.” Such is the situation for world Jewry today. A profound sadness for the suffering of innocents. A profound loneliness that the world barely cares.

In the global language of sport, there is a grand opera called the Olympics every few years. The world’s greatest compete and perform on the world stage for glory and entertainment.

In 1972, politics and poisonous hatred entered the forum, and 11 Israeli champions of sport were murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists.

For over 40 years, two wives of the slain athletes fought for a moment of remembrance for their husbands. The head of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) refused. This week that changed. Or did it?

On August 3, 2016, before the opening of the games in Rio, Brazil, the new IOC President Thomas Bach inaugurated the Place of Mourning, which will now be a feature at every Olympics, with two stones from ancient Olympia encased in glass. Bach said at the opening “Today, the inauguration of the Place of Mourning give us the opportunity to remember those that have passed away at the Olympic Games.”

He then read the names of ALL people who died at the Olympics – not just the murdered Israeli athletes. The role call included Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died on the eve of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics in an accident in the sliding centre.

And so politics entered the Olympics arena once again.

Palestinian Arabs objected to the memorial of the slain Israelis, just as many Arab countries refuse to recognize the existence of Israel, and their athletes refuse to compete against Israeli athletes.

So the IOC compromised on the request of the Israeli widows who had fought for decades for an appropriate memorial, by remembering them in a mass grave. The slain Israelis were no longer unique. They were not singled out and murdered by terrorists. The Israeli athletes were simply victims of their passionate competition, not terrorism.

The IOC recognized the Israelis only as athletes in an #AllLivesMatter moment. At the Olympics, it is JeSuisAthletes, not JeSuisIsraeli. The dead are the dead and we mourn them all.

However, the Israelis did not get the chance to compete. They did not die on the field, competing in the sports they loved. They were taken hostage as they slept in their beds. They were not seized as athletes, but as Israelis. These victims were individuals who came into the Olympic tent to compete with their fellow athletes, but the IOC failed to protect them.

The wives of the slain Israelis were happy that the IOC did not forgot their husbands and other members of the Israeli delegation. It has been a very long journey for them.

Yet it is disappointing that the best the IOC could muster was “AllAthletesMatter.

In an effort to expand its base of support, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has sought to align itself with a variety of global “progressive” causes including transgender rights and combatting global warming. It has also taken some poor advice in connecting itself with an anti-Israel organization.

As part of its new broad platform, BLM worked with Nadia Ben-Youssef of Adalah, a group that claims it is “advancing democracy and equality for all Israelis.” As detailed in “Adalah, Dismantling Zionism,” the group does not seek equality for all Israelis, but seeks to replace the Jewish State with a bi-national state, and to insert a new Jew-free state into the West Bank.

The BLM platform includes a call to “Invest-Divest” with the following statement:

“The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people….
Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall.”

What advisors suggested that BLM align itself with such an anti-Israel organization like Adalah? That demonizes the only liberal country in the Middle East?

Could it be that left-wing radicals like Senator Bernie Sanders and his advisors at J Street pointed him in this direction? Perhaps Cornell West, one of Sanders consultants who worked (but failed) to include language that demonized Israel in the 2016 Democratic platform, found a new platform to make his mark? The author of this smear campaign was one of his students at Princeton. Maybe it was the New Israel Fund, that donates to the group?

Cornell West (photo by: SHFWire/ Erin Bell)

One could perhaps understand the BLM’s desire to expand its appeal and conflate its cause with that of other people. However, seeking advice from an increasingly anti-Israel left-wing cohort, to support demonizing Israel is beyond bad judgment.

Recently, the Black Lives Matter movement was furious that Donald Trump did not disavow the endorsement of the racist David Duke of the KKK. Trump never asked for that endorsement; it was just given to him. But now the BLM movement ACTIVELY invited an anti-Israel organization to draft its new platform, AND inscribed their slander as its official cause. Which action was more racist and malicious?

One can only imagine how deeply the BLM leadership must have wanted to forcefully jab their fingers into Israel lovers worldwide.

On July 27, 2016, America witnessed an unusual piece of political theater. It was not that a member of a competing political party addressed a convention. It was the thrust of the argument made on the national stage by a respected politician that there’s nothing wrong with marrying a prostitute.

Let me say at the outset that I have long believed that prostitution should be legalized. How do our laws state that pornography and massages are legal but prostitution is not? Why do we allow people to marry for money? Why do women’s rights groups fight for women to be able to control their bodies when it comes to abortion, but ignore the call when it comes to call girls? Lastly, nothing would better protect women in the profession than legalizing the act.

But put all of that to the side. I’m talking about selling your vote. About paying for favors. About quid (the British know it means money) pro quo. About Hillary Clinton.

The former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg addressed the Democratic National Convention in July to appeal to those who dislike both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. His reasoning for backing Hillary Clinton for president was… well, you read it:

“I know what it’s like to have neither party fully represent my views or values. Too many Republicans wrongly blame immigrants for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on climate change and gun violence. Meanwhile, many Democrats wrongly blame the private sector for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on education reform and deficit reduction.

There are times when I disagree with Hillary. But whatever our disagreements may be, I’ve come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue.”

In other words, she’s far from ideal, but the alternative is unacceptable. She may have a bad track record, but at least she’s experienced. You may not love her, but she’ll get the job done.

Sort of like marrying a prostitute.

Of course, you can hold out and wait to marry for love, but the wedding is scheduled for November 8. The Bachelor has two finalists (actually three, including Libertarian Gary Johnson that the press never discusses). Will you marry the person who skates on the edge of the law, has spent a lifetime in her craft, and works the angles to line her pockets, that you severely dislike? Or the novice whose voice agitates you, who’s so new to the street that he doesn’t even know how all of the equipment works?

Bloomberg declared that this election was not about love, but getting the job done. By a professional with a rate card.

Look at the recent ransom payment that the Obama Administration made to Iran to release hostages. The administration may say it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists – except for all of the times that it does. And who’s worse off? The Americans are free, and all we had to do was pay blackmail money. (Hey, the terrorism the Iranians will fund will likely be against Israel and Europe, so America should be OK, so chill.)

And just like the perfected sales pitch “But wait! There’s more!”

Search the leaked DNC emails and review the long laundry list of payoffs that Democrats made for influence. So what? It’s an ATM Democracy.

The farce of this election is that Trump was one of Clinton’s johns. He paid in. He knows she’s worth it. Why don’t you get that?

A prostitute and a john walk into an election cycle…and the former mayor of New York made it clear that you back the service-provider.

Hooray!

It was long past time that someone stood on a national stage and said it’s time to decriminalize prostitution. Thank you Michael Bloomberg. You made your point clearly: There’s no love to be found in this election, so ignore your heart. Pay for the Pro. At least you can be sure you’ll get what you ordered.

And if you don’t have money, see if Obama can get a pallet of bills over to your house before he leaves office. The Iranians say he’s a pro too.

There is a catch phrase that is popular with the United Nations and the Democratic party in the United Sates when they discuss a two state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict. It surrounds the word “dignity,” and its unique application for the Palestinian Arabs.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon often called for realizing Palestinian Arab dignity, and US President Barack Obama also freely used the term for Palestinian Arabs. The 2016 Democratic Platform highlighted Palestinian dignity twice in it’s short discussion of the Israeli-Arab conflict (statement below).

What about Israeli dignity? It’s never mentioned by the UN or Democrats.

Oslo Accords

The concept of “dignity” was originally meant to be for both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. In the actual agreements signed by both parties in September 1995, the language is clear:

“REAFFIRMING their determination to put an end to decades of confrontation and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity and security, while recognizing their mutual legitimate and political rights;”

Mutual dignity. Dignity for both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs. As agreed to by both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

Yet the Democrats and the United Nations NEVER mention dignity for Israelis. Why?

Palestinian Arab Dignity

Is there something unique and/or special about Palestinian Arab dignity? How is it distinct from Israeli dignity? How has mutual dignity been replaced by dignity for a single party?

Is it the Economy? According to one prominent Palestinian Arab, Bassem Eid, the dignity that Palestinian Arabs seek is completely related to economic prosperity:

“Palestinians are anxious about their future. In my opinion, dignity can come only via economic prosperity.”

Is that it? Economic opportunity? Perhaps that is why Israeli dignity is not mentioned by the UN and Democrats – because Israel already has a thriving economy.

But if the goal was economic development for Palestinian Arabs, why did the UN and US President Obama advance plans to ban Israeli Jews from living in EGL (east of the Green Line)/ West Bank of the Jordan River? Economic prosperity for Palestinian Arabs would be stimulated by greater investment, trade and normalization of the working and living conditions of the two people. Conversely, a Jew-free Palestinian state would hurt such path to Arab prosperity.

Is it Independence? Obama talked about dignity slightly differently than Bassem Eid:

“The Palestinian people deserve an end to occupation and the daily indignities that come with it. Palestinians deserve to move and travel freely, and to feel secure in their communities. Like people everywhere, Palestinians deserve a future of hope — that their rights will be respected, that tomorrow will be better than today and that they can give their children a life of dignity and opportunity. Put simply, Palestinians deserve a state of their own.”

In Obama’s formulation, dignity would be the natural outgrowth of independence and sovereignty. In other words, with an independent state, there would automatically be dignity. Palestinian dignity begins – and ends – with their own state. Nothing else is needed. (I would assume that Obama believes the US still strips Native Americans of their dignity since they only have independence but no real sovereignty).

Perhaps, as Israel already had independence and sovereignty, there was no need to call out for Israeli dignity.

If only life were that simple.

The Palestinian Arab leadership has a much broader set of criteria than Obama’s and Eid’s independence and economic opportunity to bring about “dignity”.

Is it Freedom for Murderers? Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas spoke at a “Freedom and Dignity” conference in Ramallah, just weeks after he met with President Obama in 2013, and dropped the “d-word” a few times.

Abbas, and his left-wing radical European brothers-in-arms, argued for the release of Marwan Barghouti, who was in Israeli jail for the murders of five Israeli civilians. Abbas said that only the release of murderers like Barghouti will show that Israelis are ready for peace; only the release of murderers, could restore Palestinian Arab dignity.

All of the Above, and much more? For Mahmoud Abbas, the requirements to restore Palestinian dignity did not stop with economic prosperity, independence and sovereignty, nor the release of Arab prisoners. As Abbas stated in his address to world leader at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, Palestinian Arab dignity was tied to Israel itself:

“Is it not time for the humiliating and degrading checkpoints and barriers set up by the Israeli occupying forces in our land to be removed, for the Israeli blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip to be lifted, and for our people to move in freedom and dignity in their own homeland and outside? Is it not time to end the racist, terrorist, colonial settlement of our land, which is destroying the two-state solution? Is it not the time for the six thousand Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli jails to see the light of freedom and to live among their families and communities? Is it not the time for the longest occupation in history suffocating our people to come to an end?”

Is it No Security for Israel? Abbas’s version of dignity means that Israelis would not be able to properly defend itself by removing the blockade of Gaza (which a UN report viewed as legal). He also suggested that Palestinian Arabs should have free access “outside” – meaning in Israel? Does Abbas truly believe that security checkpoints into Israel should disappear, and Palestinian Arabs should freely cross without screening?

Is it Banning Jews from the Land? Abbas referred to Israelis living in EGL/ West Bank of the Jordan River as “racists, terrorists and colonialists.” Are Israelis racists for thinking that Jews should be allowed to live anywhere they purchase land? Is Palestinian dignity only realized by having a pure Arab country without any Jews?

Is it Killing Jews? By declaring that peaceful Jews living in their homes in EGL (like the Fogels and Hallel Yaffa Ariel) are “terrorists,” Abbas gave legitimacy to fellow Palestinian Arabs to defend themselves and kill Israelis, even as they slept in their beds.

Is it in Denying Jewish history? By saying that Jews are “colonialists,” Abbas rejected the entire 3700-year history of Jews in their holy land. Is Palestinian Arab dignity only realized by obliterating the history of the Jews?

That’s quite an order for realizing Palestinian Arab “dignity.”

Palestinian Arab Dignity Reversing Negotiations

Beyond the anti-Semitic and insulting concepts that Abbas considered in his definition of “dignity,” he sought actions directly opposing the parameters of bilateral negotiations to date. Consider Abbas’s statement to the European Union in June 2016:

”Peace and coexistence based on the foundations of justice, truth and respect for the dignity and humanity and freedom of each party on an equal footing, is the real guarantee for security and stability and a promising future for the generations to come, and your generations.”

No to a demilitarized Palestinian State? What does Abbas mean by “equal footing?” Is he suggesting that not only should Israel limit/ remove checkpoints with a new Palestinian state, but that such Palestinian state would have a full army, on “equal footing” with Israel? One of the basic premises of negotiating of a two state agreement was that the Palestinian Arabs would have a demilitarized country. Does that now deny Palestinian Arab dignity?

What can we expect Abbas to add to his list of items for “dignity?”

Dhimmitude? Will Abbas at some point allow non-Muslims to live in a new independent soverign Palestinian state, as long as they are “dhimmis“?

Honor Killings? Gaza has become the leader in the world in the barbaric practice of honor killings where families kill women who “dishonor” the family. Does Abbas feel that the practice will bring back honor and respect to Palestinians?

Deny the Jewish Temples existed? In addition to denying the long Jewish history in Israel, will Palestinian Arab dignity be realized by denying the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem? Must the Arab world push UNESCO to deny Jews their spiritiual home and legacy, to achieve “dignity?”

Deny Jews Open Access for Prayer? Will the Palestinian dignity be realized by forbidding Jews from praying at their holiest location? The United Nations and Democrats seem to agree that Jews should be denied.

Calling Jews “sons of apes and pigs?” Do Palestinians achieve dignity by dehumanizing Jews and referring to Jews as “sons of apes and pigs”?

Naming squares and tournaments and schools after killers of Jews? Does Abbas help the Palestinian quest for dignity by naming schools, squares and tournaments after mass murderers of Jews?

Refusing to teach the Holocaust in school or various forms of Holocaust denial? Does Abbas instill dignity in his people, by denying the Holocaust and refusing to teach it at human rights at UNRWA schools?

Suing Great Britain for the Balfour Declaration? Is it not enough to deny the history and rights of Jews in their holy land, must Abbas gain Arab dignity by bullying the world into not acknowledging Jewish rights and history for themselves?

US President Obama and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Is this the kind of dignity and vision of two states that the United Nations and Democrats have? Is that why Israeli dignity has disappeared from the minds of the jaded power brokers, because Palestinian Arab dignity can only be achieved by denying Israelis their own dignity?

Historians will debate the demise of the Oslo Accords. As they do, they will examine how the United Nations and United States embraced the twisted notion that Israeli dignity precluded Arab dignity, and more specifically, that Arab dignity could only be achieved by denying Israeli dignity.

“A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism. That is why we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself, including by retaining its qualitative military edge, and oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.

We will continue to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties that guarantees Israel’s future as a secure and democratic Jewish state with recognized borders and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity. While Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations, it should remain the capital of Israel, an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. Israelis deserve security, recognition, and a normal life free from terror and incitement. Palestinians should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity.”

In an effort to stop global terrorism, the United Nations assembled a team that composed an official Counterterrorism Strategy. The eight point plan was meant to serve as a set of guiding principles for governments to follow in the hopes of curbing terrorism.

Unfortunately, the UN ignores those exact principles when it comes to dealing with Palestinian Arab terrorists.

“[C]ontinue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation.” Does the UN use the capacities of its institution in negotiations and mediation? No. It endorses a French plan that excludes both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs from the discussions. It does nothing to encourage the Palestinian Arabs to commence negotiations.

“[M]utual respect for and prevent the defamation of religions, religious values, beliefs and cultures.” The UN fails in this initiative as well. The United Nations’ UNESCO arm drafted resolutions that deny that the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and its centrality to Judaism and the Jewish people. It argues that Jews should be banned from praying at their holiest place. It’s entire treatment of Jewish holy places in the holy land is terrible. Further, as detailed in “The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists,” the UN uniquely calls Jews extremists, while it never refers to Islamic terrorism.

“To promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures by establishing and encouraging, as appropriate, education and public awareness programmes involving all sectors of society. In this regard, we encourage theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to play a key role, including through inter-faith and intra-faith dialogue and dialogue among civilizations.” UNESCO denies Jewish history in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It undermines the education of the world of the 3700 year history of Jews in the holy land, including throughout the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria, as it worries that it offends Arabs. Another UN agency, UNRWA, does not teach the Holocaust to Palestinian Arab children for the same reason.

“[P]rohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct.” The UN calls for the terrorist group Hamas to be integrated into a Palestinian Authority unity government. The UN doesn’t seek to prohibit terrorism as much as reward it. The UN Secretary General loudly declares that he “stands with Gaza.,” which is run by Hamas that launched three wars against Israel. Does Ki-Moon ever say that he stands with Israel? Never.

“[C]ommitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all.” The UN worked to remove the Israeli company Sodastream from the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria, costing hundreds of Arabs their jobs. In March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Watch created a “blacklist” of Israeli companies operating east of the Green Line. Does the UN want a sustainable economic model for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, or would it prefer to keep the Palestinians on perpetual life-support from the UN? In any event, the entire notion that there is a link between poverty and terrorism has repeatedly been proven false.

“To pursue and reinforce development and social inclusion agendas at every level as goals in themselves, recognizing that success in this area, especially on youth unemployment, could reduce marginalization and the subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.” There is nothing that creates the sense of “victimization” of youth more than UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. As detailed in “UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews,” the organization is perpetuating a war from 1948 which the Arabs initiated and lost. UNRWA is making children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of original refugees grow up in camps without citizenship to specifically foster the sense of victimhood. The UN never address or rebukes the multi-decade laws of Lebanon and Syria that prevent the stateless Arabs from receiving citizenship.

“To encourage the United Nations system as a whole to scale up the cooperation and assistance it is already conducting in the fields of rule of law, human rights and good governance, to support sustained economic and social development.” Is the UN happy with Palestinian laws which call for death sentence for people who sell land to Jews? How about giving a pass to honor killings? Rampant theft by government officials? How has the UN helped the Palestinians these many years?

“To consider putting in place, on a voluntary basis, national systems of assistance that would promote the needs of victims of terrorism and their families and facilitate the normalization of their lives.” Maybe the UN can acknowledge the Israeli victims of terror for a change. Maybe it can stop excusing Palestinian Arab terrorists with statements that they “resort” to violence.

The United Nations stands by while Acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas incites terror. The UN ignores payments that the PA makes to terrorist families. It seems to bless the naming of schools, squares and tournaments after terrorists. The UN Secretary General never seems to have read the Hamas Charter or the Fatah Constitution, and then acts shocked when Hamas commits murder.

Instead, Ban Ki Moon asked Israel to put its trust in the Palestinian Authority as he stated “Israelis should be comforted by the emergence of a reliable partner and neighbour committed to Israel’s right to live in peace and security, opposed to violence and terrorism, and able to deliver on the ground.” Within days, an Israeli family was killed while they slept by two Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The United Nations under Secretary General Ban Ki Moon ha stood watch while terrorism spread from the Middle East to around the globe. The UN has acted as guardians of Palestinian Arab wards these many decades, and did not institute any of these reforms for itself or into the nascent Palestinian Authority.

How can the world put any faith in the UN in developing a plan to combat terrorism, when it has fostered and perpetuated terrorism in the Middle East?

As the UN doesn’t follow any of its own enumerated Counterterrorism strategies in dealing with Palestinian Arabs, maybe the plan might actually work.